Jerry O’neil; v. State Bar of Montana;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JERRY O’NEIL; et al.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
STATE BAR OF MONTANA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35928
D.C. No. 9:08-cv-00091-DWM-
JCL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jerry O’Neil and others appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing their action challenging a judgment of the Montana Supreme Court
affirming a state court determination that O’Neil has engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
FILED
NOV 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-35928 2
novo. Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
barred the action as to the claims made by plaintiff O’Neil because it constitutes a
“de facto appeal” of a state court decision, and raises additional claims that are
“inextricably intertwined” with the prior state court decision. Reusser v. Wachovia
Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (a federal action is barred if
adjudication of the federal claims would undermine the state ruling or require the
district court to review the application of state laws or procedural rules).
The district court properly concluded that the remaining plaintiffs failed to
state a claim. See Long v. County of Los Angeles, 442 F.3d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir.
2006) (to state a claim under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated).
Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --